Romney leads Santorum by five in Pennsylvania

posted at 9:50 am on April 5, 2012 by Tina Korbe

In the latest Quinnipiac University poll, Rick Santorum still had a comfortable six-point lead over Mitt Romney in his home state of Pennsylvania. A new Public Policy Polling survey, though, shows Mitt Romney with a five-point lead over the former Pennsylvania senator.

Mitt Romney’s taken the lead in PPP’s newest poll of Rick Santorum’s home state of Pennsylvania. Romney has 42% to 37% for Santorum with Ron Paul at 9% and Newt Gingrich at 6%. The numbers represent a dramatic turnaround from when PPP polled the state a month ago. Romney’s gained 17 points, going from 25% to 42%. Meanwhile Santorum’s dropped 6 points from 43% to 37%, for an overall swing of 23 points in the last four weeks.

Pennsylvania Republicans are expressing major doubts about Santorum’s viability both in the primary and the general election. Only 36% of GOP voters think Santorum has a realistic chance at the nomination to 54% who believe he does not. And when it comes to matching up against Barack Obama in the fall only 24% of Republicans think Santorum would provide their best chance for a victory while 49% think that designation belongs to Romney.

Santorum’s favorability numbers haven’t really changed from a month ago. He was at 64/30 and now he’s at 62/31. But Romney’s seen quite a bit of improvement in his image, perhaps reflecting growing acceptance that he will be the nominee. His favorability has improved a net 16 points from +6 (46/40) to +22 (57/35).

Romney retains comfortable leads among seniors, men, “somewhat conservative” voters, moderates and suburban voters — and he’s made huge dents in Santorum’s leads among evangelicals, Tea Party voters and “very conservative” voters. As the PPP poll summary states, the race is still a close one, so Santorum could yet win — but the momentum favors Mitt Romney.

The real question, though, is this: Will Santorum risk a loss? With that devastating 18-point loss in the 2006 Senate race already on his record, will he want even a narrow defeat in his home state to be the next addition to his Wikipedia page? His rhetoric in recent days — particularly his invocations of the fighting spirit of Ronald Reagan, who lost his first bid at the presidential nomination — suggest he’d consider another run at the presidency in 2016. If he ducks out before a loss in Pennsylvania, he’d be an immediate contender in 2016, remembered as the man who gave Mitt Romney a real race. If he loses Pennsylvania, he might not be a contender at all in 2016, remembered as the man who held on too long.

A friend of the Santorum family suggests Santorum does not want to be remembered as that guy:

But one of Santorum’s close friends told The Hill that while the former Pennsylvania senator remains confident about winning his home state and using that to build May momentum, if that confidence falters, he might exit the race. Pennsylvania state Sen. Jake Corman (R), a longtime friend of Santorum and his family, said if it appeared Santorum wasn’t going to win the state, the former senator could drop his campaign.

“He’s a realist; he doesn’t have his head in the clouds,” Corman told The Hill. “As long as he sees a pathway to the nomination he’s going to stay in it, but he won’t stay in it to prove a point. If he gets to the point where he doesn’t think he’ll be the nominee, he’ll get out.”

The Santorum campaign’s own internal polling might show a different race in Pennsylvania, such that the candidate will compete regardless of what polls like this one suggest. If this is an accurate reflection of the state of the race in the Keystone State, though, I’d be surprised if Santorum hasn’t at least considered rethinking his “stay in until May at all costs” strategy.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

You’re probably right about this Emperor. Many folks I know have soured on Romney considerably the way he and his supporters have conducted themselves during this primary. They have and have had complete disdain for conservatives, and conservatives will enjoy watching Romney twist in the wind once the democrats get down to business.

KickandSwimMom on April 5, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Can you be any more petulant? Oh, sorry…I guess that’s expressing disdain for the poor, oppressed conservatives again. The fact you try to claim that mantle for yourself while basically advocating for an Obama victory is frightening.

Again, maybe the hard core AM conservatives at some point will get that there are more of the rational even keeled people out there in the nation, as well as the republican party, than there are of them.

Boomer_Sooner on April 5, 2012 at 10:57 AM

You mean the rational even keeled people that only pay attention to soundbites, polls, and destructive campaign commercials? Those ones?

Many folks I know have soured on Romney considerably the way he and his supporters have conducted themselves during this primary. They have and have had complete disdain for conservatives, and conservatives will enjoy watching Romney twist in the wind once the democrats get down to business.

KickandSwimMom on April 5, 2012 at 10:49 AM

And still more whining from an ABR misfit who can dish it but apparently doesn’t think she should have to take it. Maybe this is all just a bit too much for you.

Classic misfit gibberish. It would be humorous if it wasn’t so pathetic.
cicerone on April 5, 2012 at 10:55 AM

What, a misfit? Hey, buddy, you’re the Mormon, remember?

Well it’s nice to know that you don’t feel the need to be taken seriously. Clown nose on?

cicerone on April 5, 2012 at 11:03 AM

It’s not your role to act as the thread monitor. You have no authority to criticise or scold any other commenter. All you’re done here for months is promote Willard as the inevitable Fuehrer, and harass people who don’t happen to like him.

I sent the Santorum campaign a contribution for PA because, if nothing else, it might be my last chance to be enthusiastic and excited about this election. And to support a candidate who is a good guy and who I admire and support not only him but his policies. He doesn’t deserve to be humiliated and I don’t think he will be. None of that will I be able to do or say if Romney becomes the nominee. If I wanted a candidate like Romney, I would have registered as a democrat for all the sleaziness and disrespect he, his campaign, and his super pac goons have shown to the other republicans. I love all the dumping on Rick I’m reading about and trying to paint him as what really what Romney really is – vicious and unstatesman-like. As much as I resent being guilted into voting, the one consolation should Romney become the nominee, is that if we have to lose, it will be his face on the loss of 2012.

I have this headache I can’t shake off so I can’t reply to your whole post-because I’d like to. It’s revolting to vote to go along and follow the establishment. There’s also the 30-second audience, and those that just wanna vote for the “winner” so they feel like winners.

It’s not about religion for me at all, even when I wrote about this above. It’s McCain all over again, and Romney has said one or two similar comments along the same lines as McCain.

This primary has strengthened (sp?) or proved to be as our own vetting first. I don’t want to vet our GOP candidate coming election time. IMHO the US as a whole should vote ONE DAY, nationwide. Yes, when we had all the candidates from the beginning. Vet them for a period of time but have the whole country vote for them.

Mitt Romney has been crowned and chosen. When Rubio said in his interview “our nominee” meaning Romney it made me sick. And that was before he was crowned by the establishment. Marco Rubio is Jeb’s puppet. Sorry-Cubans are good for sandwiches and coffee. Great and likeable when you meet them, then they stab you in the back and twist the knife.

Actually, Obama is the one who’s not remotely a conservative. But it appears you would rather cheerlead for the defeat of Romney than for the defeat of Obama. Go figure.

Also your insistance on using the name “Willard” in italics doesn’t exactly make you come across as especially reasonable or greatly intelligent. Calling a person by a given name they don’t go by is the kind of playground name calling that I recall from grade school but never thereafter. Until now.

Also your insistance on using the name “Willard” in italics doesn’t exactly make you come across as especially reasonable or greatly intelligent. Calling a person by a given name they don’t go by is the kind of playground name calling that I recall from grade school but never thereafter. Until now.

dczombie on April 5, 2012 at 11:27 AM

It’s his bigotry talking. He’s made it quite clear that he has a problem with Mormons, and that is the driving force behind his “Willard” hate. At least other ABR’s have substantive objections, to their credit.

I guess as far as the seven stages go it looks like some here are at the anger stage and either will not vote for Romney or worse will vote for Obama as Santorum has suggested. A rational person would understand that we had a good look at all the candidates that had the guts to put their records reputations and family through the ringer and now Romney is apparently last man standing with a pathway to the nomination.

In short of those that ran, the Republican electorate decided he was the best.

Successful Businessman that grew Staples and Office Depot
As Governor Balanced Budgets in every year in Dark Blue MA
Saved the Olympics
Can Raise enough money to battle the O
Decent Man
Great Family and Wife

So as I see it we either go to battle supporting Romney and hopefully Rubio and save our nation from fiscal disaster or we let the nation fail.

There is no evidence that any of your comments are true. You just hate Santorum for whatever reason.

Happy Nomad on April 5, 2012 at 11:05 AM

I don’t really get this bizarre meme that Santorum is running with “evil motives.” There was some basis to criticize Newt for doing this since numerous articles came out to suggest that Newt was running primarily to deny Romney the nomination.

But really, Santorum trying to win the primary is somehow “ego driven stubborness?” I’m not sure who Romney supporters think they’re convincing with this argument.

Not that I expect it, but Santorum really needs to drop out before he loses Pennsylvania if he wants any chance of running for public office again. Losing his last Senate race and the upcoming PA primary on April 24 would pretty much be the end of the line for him.

I am a conservative and I will not stay home, I will not enjoy the carnage, (unless we are on the inflicting, rather than receiving side), and I will not withold my vote for the Republican nominee just because I didn’t get my way.

I will hold my nose and pull the lever for whomever we nominate because this country can’t withstand another four years of Obama and his appointees. If for no other reason than to replace EPA leadership…..

Also your insistance on using the name “Willard” in italics doesn’t exactly make you come across as especially reasonable or greatly intelligent.

Yes I have called him Willard, occasionally in italics for emphasis, but in Roman in the vast majority of cases. Originally, I called him Willard, Lord Romney. That fits like a glove.

But let me get this straight. You’re attacking me for calling Willard by his real given name, and you’ve got your panties in a bunch over the italics, too? Why don’t you snitch to the assistant principal about me?

The wanton use of italics cannot be left unpunished!

It’s his bigotry talking. He’s made it quite clear that he has a problem with Mormons, and that is the driving force behind his “Willard” hate. At least other ABR’s have substantive objections, to their credit.
changer1701 on April 5, 2012 at 11:35 AM

No, it’s not. You lie! I don’t hate. I don’t like Willard because he’s not a conservative, and since he swears that he really is, he’s a liar, too. That about sums it up.

But of course you realize that the Gallup poll found that 21% of Americans will not vote for a Mormon. Why is that? Is it because they didn’t like Donny and Marie? It sounds like you have millions of people to insult besides me.

But I must admit that I don’t like the Mormon practice of baptizing the dead. In this regard, Mormons should learn to leave well enough alone and mind their own business.

Agreed but a Muslim raised “Christian” who spent 20 years at a church that openly despises whites has little ammunition to throw at a Mormon.

Happy Nomad on April 5, 2012 at 11:09 AM

It won’t stop them… check out Newsbusters..

MSNBC has launched an attack campaign against Mitt’s Mormon faith already, it’s cheap and nasty, and shameless.. and doesn’t have a single Obama finger print on it. That is how they’ll attack his faith, all by surrogates.

Still statistically insignificant
…
Bradky on April 5, 2012 at 11:32 AM

..Interesting concept; I like the nick-name. Did you actually determine there were 35 or so in this cabal?

I used to get really, really downcast after reading the ABR threads here. Then, like you, I realized that there’s very few who profess the anti-willard sentiments, post the trash talk, and wish to spread their “joy” to others.

I would add to the “you know why” comment to KickAndSwimMom and related supplications to Katy The Mean Old Lady: Please. I personally would be grateful for your support of the nominee. When this storm has passed, we would need you because, after all, our mortal enemy is The Pantload not Romney. We can fix Romney; we can’t fix this country after another four years of unfettered Chicago Jesus activism.

I don’t understand why anyone would choose Obama over Romney.
Cause that’s what will happen if you don’t vote for Mitt.
Accept that this year a conservative will not be a choice.
But Romney is proud to be an American, & will not govern as far to the left as Obama.
Obama holds disdain for America the Constitution & Israel, but high regard for everyone else.
Even the Muslim Brotherhood is welcomed to the White House.
I held my nose to vote for McCain.
& I’ll do the same for Romney.
By not voting, or doing a write in, your actions support Obama.

But let me get this straight. You’re attacking me for calling Willard by his real given name,

Emperor Norton on April 5, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Nope. You don’t have it straight. I’m not attacking you. I’m simply pointing out that what you’re doing there is childish and silly. If you want to win people over to your side, you might consider formulating well structured and logical arguments to support your views. That would be more effective that tossing out schoolyard taunts, such as calling a person by a given name they don’t use.

Thanks, Mom. It does look as if the lunatics have taken over the assylum. There’s no longer any outreach or unifying initiative in the campaign or GOP let alone in here. We’re being bullied, coerced, guilted, threatened – no pride or enthusiasm of fair play or statesmanship for their candidate and not exactly enticing or attractive to the rest of us.

Can you be any more petulant? Oh, sorry…I guess that’s expressing disdain for the poor, oppressed conservatives again. The fact you try to claim that mantle for yourself while basically advocating for an Obama victory is frightening.

If you want to win people over to your side, you might consider formulating well structured and logical arguments to support your views.

OK, here goes. Willard is a liberal and a known liar, so it’s a big mistake to support him for the Republican nomination.

That would be more effective that tossing out schoolyard taunts, such as calling a person by a given name they don’t use.

I had no idea that was a schoolyard taunt. That must be how it is in those tough Mormon neighborhoods in rural Utah. That’s much worse than getting beat up for your lunch money, or having your gym sneakers thrown over the power line.

But tell me–can there really be schoolyard taunts if kids are getting home-schooled?

Thanks, Mom. It does look as if the lunatics have taken over the assylum. There’s no longer any outreach or unifying initiative in the campaign or GOP let alone in here. We’re being bullied, coerced, guilted, threatened – no pride or enthusiasm of fair play or statesmanship for their candidate and not exactly enticing or attractive to the rest of us.

mozalf on April 5, 2012 at 12:11 PM

..don’t paint with such a broad brush. Personally, I would really, really appreciate your support OF THE NOMINEE and respect your “un-preference” for Romney (if that’s the case). In the final analysis, I believe that you and I or KickAndSim and I or whomever and I could have a much more civil conversation and disagreement over political principles versus necessity than we all could have with those Obama tongue-bathers like Lobotomy4Life, etc.

I would be very grateful to you if you voted against Obama by voting for the nominee.

His job is to get the conversation off on various tangents
crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM

And if we’re off on a tangent (which hasn’t really happened in this thread) we can’t discuss the overriding importance of goose-stepping in unison behind Willard, the presumptive nominee, nor focus on insulting anyone who dares criticise Willard’s far-reaching vision.

What is Willard’s vision, you ask?

He sees an America where he is President, and you’re not. It’s payback for the time his daddy George ran for the Presidency, and lost. Now Willard will get to do what his daddy didn’t.

OK, here goes. Willard is a liberal and a known liar, so it’s a big mistake to support him for the Republican nomination.

That is a fine argument. It’s one many have made and I’m sure many here agree with.

The question at hand though is what to do after he becomes the nominee? (Based on total delegate count and upcoming primaries, I take it as a given that Romney will be the nominee.) My position is that even though he wasn’t my first choice, or even my second choice, if he is the nominee I will support him.

By support, I mean I will volunteer at phone banks, knock on doors, and pull the lever for him. I would do the same for Santorum, Gingrich (gulp), or Paul (double gulp), if one of them were the nominee. Because in the end I prefer any of them to another four years of Obama.

Nope. You don’t have it straight. I’m not attacking you. I’m simply pointing out that what you’re doing there is childish and silly. If you want to win people over to your side, you might consider formulating well structured and logical arguments to support your views. That would be more effective that tossing out schoolyard taunts, such as calling a person by a given name they don’t use.

dczombie on April 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Say, do you point out to the Romney supporters who call Santorum “Sweater Vest Rick” and other childish monikers that what they are doing is “childish and silly?” Unless you do, you have no credibility in pointing out anything to Willard’s detractors!

Looks like Rasmussen still has Santorum up by 4 in PA. I hope he wins just to disturb the “serenity” of the Mittwits.

The Romney campaign was very clear about not needing my vote.
I’ll be voting down ticket and writing my preferred candidate in.

katy the mean old lady on April 5, 2012 at 11:19 AM

I was resigned to the idea of voting AGAINST Obama (for Mitt) in November. Now that idea has gone out the window. Mitt will have to EARN my vote between now and then, and if he continues to crap on conservatives, he won’t.

Only someone living in a fantasy land would use “Eek”. Santorum has no chance. It is over. It isn’t “Eek” so much as “inevitable”.

That “Eek” comment exposes bias if it is meant as coming from the poster of the article.

Santorum at this point is doing more harm that good for Republican chances in the fall. He is being what amounts to a political troll, a distraction, a waste of money and energy. This isn’t going to reflect well on his future with the party.

Say, do you point out to the Romney supporters who call Santorum “Sweater Vest Rick” and other childish monikers that what they are doing is “childish and silly?” Unless you do, you have no credibility in pointing out anything to Willard’s detractors!

JannyMae on April 5, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Good point.

After all, we all “KNOW” (wink wink, nod nod), that Romney supporters started calling Santorum “Sweater Vest Rick” LONG BEFORE ANYONE called Mitt “Willard” or “Mittens”.

Santorum at this point is doing more harm that good for Republican chances in the fall. He is being what amounts to a political troll, a distraction, a waste of money and energy. This isn’t going to reflect well on his future with the party.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Yeah, that’s rich blaming Santorum for a republican loss in the fall. If Romney’s the nominee, it will be on him and him alone. Hence, the intense pushback from the 59% in the primaries that aren’t voting for him now. Perhaps Romney should withdraw for the good of the party using your logic.

Don’t be silly. I didn’t let “guys in suits” pick my candidate. My candidates dropped out of the race so it doesn’t really do any good to support them any more. At this point my candidate is the GOP nominee.

And, yes, I’d volunteer for any of those guys if they were nominated. In 2008 I argued forcefully against nominating John McCain. I thought he was a terrible candidate and doubted his ability to win. But when it was all done and he was nominated I burned vacation days to help on his campaign.

We should all feel free to argue forcefully for our preferred canddiate. We should not take our ball and go home if we don’t get our way.

Many folks I know have soured on Romney considerably the way he and his supporters have conducted themselves during this primary. They have and have had complete disdain for conservatives, and conservatives will enjoy watching Romney twist in the wind once the democrats get down to business.

KickandSwimMom on April 5, 2012 at 10:49 AM

There are many flavors of what “Conservatism” means to people and that dynamic could not have been any more evident with the way the this primary season has played out. Dixie – the midwest- the rust belt- the northeast- each region has its different history and demographic. The TruCon notion that there is only one size of conservatism to fit everyone is what is misguided. If you have lived in more than 1 of these geographical areas in your life you can (should) appreciate those differences.
ABRs have to understand that their unsubstantiated antithetical position toward Mittens and his “bots” -sooner and later- was going to create the backlash of resentment in that regard as well.

Hence, the intense pushback from the 59% in the primaries that aren’t voting for him now. Perhaps Romney should withdraw for the good of the party using your logic.

mozalf on April 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM

.
And this canard of adding up all the ABR votes and apply them against Mittens is nothing more than liberal chicanery. (I just realized Chicago is the root of the word chicanery!) Applying that fantasy electoral math say toward Egonewt we would conclude 85% of ppl did not vote for him- Paul 93% ?- Santo 70% ? of people did not vote for him.
This is liberal style propaganda that can rankle ABOmittsters- Mittens can handle a 3 on 1…. but in the end we can’t have 3 nominees. Can we?

You sure you are not going to start whining once Romney loses in November? He is a BAD candidate. How do you feel about Warren Buffet as the nominee based on his business background? How about Bill Gates?

How many people do you think you will be able to get to knock doors and convince neighbors to vote for Romney?

And the polling data shows the exact opposite, people are souring on Santorum. Not the other way around. Santorum couldn’t even hold the evangelical vote in MD. He won it by a few percentage points in Wisconsin, and is barely even in Pennsylvania. His own support demographics are souring on him.

Santorum is losing ground at an increasing pace with his own supporters.

What I find to be worthy of note is that PPP is showing the same kind of swing in PA as it did in WI, and their last poll in WI was actually the most accurate in terms of projecting final results.

What is also interesting is that the RCP average of polls shows Santorum with 37.5% support in PA, which is the lowest of any of the candidates in their home state (Romney won 72% in MA and Gingrich won 47% in GA). And this is before anyone has really targeted PA with advertising.

If you were to read what I was posting about Romney as late as the middle of 2011, you might take what I say now in a different light. I was NOT a Romney fan. For example:

So a guy walks into a bar and orders a cucumber sandwich. Bartender says, “Here ya go, Mitt”.

crosspatch on April 19, 2011 at 12:23 AM

and

Romney does have some business experience but is too far removed from main street. He seems more comfortable at the country club with Biff and Buffy eating cucumber sandwiches.

What changed my mind was research. The above sentiments were based more on information from pundits and the mainstream press. Back in March I decided to do some independent research on the candidates. Two things happened:

1. I realized that Santorum was not politically conservative. He is SOCIALLY conservative but not politically. He is basically a conservative Democrat in his vision of the role of the federal government.

2. I got a completely different view of Mitt Romney. The more I dug into his actions and his words, the more I started seeing parallels between his term as governor of MA and Reagan’s in CA. I also saw the same “conservative” rhetoric against Romney that I saw against Reagan in 1976 during Reagan’s failed attempt at the nomination.

I invite you to set aside your piss and vinegar a moment and do your own research. You might actually be surprised. I would also invite you to watch Romney’s speech yesterday to the Newspaper Editors Assoc.

I Appreciate your attempt at reaching out, but Romney and his supporters really turn me off. I’m not boarding the Romney train until he gives me a reason to vote FOR him. Otherwise, I’ll do a write-in on the presidential and focus on conservatives down-ticket.

There are many flavors of what “Conservatism” means to people and that dynamic could not have been any more evident with the way the this primary season has played out. Dixie – the midwest- the rust belt- the northeast- each region has its different history and demographic. The TruCon notion that there is only one size of conservatism to fit everyone is what is misguided. If you have lived in more than 1 of these geographical areas in your life you can (should) appreciate those differences.
ABRs have to understand that their unsubstantiated antithetical position toward Mittens and his “bots” -sooner and later- was going to create the backlash of resentment in that regard as well.

But as the great man once said- “Let us be shy no longer”.

FlaMurph on April 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM

I’ve spent half my life in Massachusetts and the other half so far in Alabama. I’ve seen and lived both ends of the political spectrum so I don’t need a lecture on how to appreciate the differences. If you consider conservatism to mean fiscally conservative, well there are fiscally conservative democrats. Conservative to me is more than that.

Many folks I know have soured on Romney considerably the way he and his supporters have conducted themselves during this primary. They have and have had complete disdain for conservatives, and conservatives will enjoy watching Romney twist in the wind once the democrats get down to business.

KickandSwimMom on April 5, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Depends on how you define “Conservative”

For instance, I don’t go to church, and don’t care much for social issues (I want the government to stay out of them), but when it comes to economics, and foreign policy, I’m the most conservative person I know. I’m also pro life, but don’t with for a federal ban on abortion. I believe in State’s rights. I voted for GWB twice, in a deep blue state, where my vote didn’t really matter. I have been a Romney supporter since day 1. Are you going to say I’m not conservative?

I got a completely different view of Mitt Romney. The more I dug into his actions and his words, the more I started seeing parallels between his term as governor of MA and Reagan’s in CA.

Romney is like Reagan? WTF? You have absolutely no shame.

do your own research.

You don’t do any research–you just copy and paste the handouts the Willard campaign provides you.

I think he’s trying to brainwash us, as Willard’s daddy once said.

I can only understand your persistence in promoting a bad candidate like Willard if there was some subtext here–like you’re a Mormon and Willard’s a Mormon Bishop. Otherwise there is no explanation for your vehement support for such a bland, vacillating moderate.

Norton, the “conservatives” didn’t like Reagan. Didn’t much like him even in his first term. It wasn’t until late into his first term (the final year, actually) that the “conservatives” started coming around on Reagan.

Newt bashed Regan every chance he got. So did many others. The talk at the time was “We don’t want some Hollywood movie star from California who ran the communist actors union as President”.

Were you politically aware in 1975 and 1976 or is that before you were born?

“Staunch Conservatives” never got along with Reagan until well into his presidency. NOW they wrap themselves in his mantle but at the time there wasn’t much love.

Otherwise there is no explanation for your vehement support for such a bland, vacillating moderate.

Emperor Norton on April 5, 2012 at 1:31 PM

.
Its gotta piss you off as well, that the Rominator is not even a “politician” He just turned 65 and spent ONLY 4 of his years as a governor. He’s a bidness man who wants to lead this country out of the mess were in.

He’s not a career corrupt politician lining his pockets in DC.
Lets try something different for a Change.

Why doesn’t Sanitorium try to robocall more Democrats to help him win the the Republican nomination?

Maybe Michael Moore and Daily Kos will endorse him again.

Cavalry on April 5, 2012 at 1:23 PM

You mean like they did for Romney in New Hampshire and all the states where there were crossover votes. Because by your logic, Romney does very well with dems in the open primaries where they can tamper with the results. Very telling ,don’t you think?

Newt bashed Regan every chance he got. So did many others. The talk at the time was “We don’t want some Hollywood movie star from California who ran the communist actors union as President”.

Were you politically aware in 1975 and 1976 or is that before you were born?

“Staunch Conservatives” never got along with Reagan until well into his presidency. NOW they wrap themselves in his mantle but at the time there wasn’t much love.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Oh you mean like more recently as when Romney trashed republicans (or was it conservatives- it doesn’t matter with him) when he ran in Massachusetts. Oh, that’s right, he was running in a very democrat state. He’s etcha sketched himself again since, hasn’t he?

Norton, the “conservatives” didn’t like Reagan. Didn’t much like him even in his first term. It wasn’t until late into his first term (the final year, actually) that the “conservatives” started coming around on Reagan.

Newt bashed Regan every chance he got. So did many others. The talk at the time was “We don’t want some Hollywood movie star from California who ran the communist actors union as President”.

Were you politically aware in 1975 and 1976 or is that before you were born?

“Staunch Conservatives” never got along with Reagan until well into his presidency. NOW they wrap themselves in his mantle but at the time there wasn’t much love.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Yeah, Reagan got staunch support from establishment & moderate Republicans in 1980, ESPECIALLY John Anderson. Newt was a Rockefeller Republican back then, as your bhoyos reminded us back when some folks had the delusion he was a viable nominee.

“When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it.

“Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.

“I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’

“If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

The so-called conservatives believed in standing behind “principle” even if it accomplished nothing or made things worse then, and they believe so now. Such behavior doesn’t work in politics. Never has, never will. Had Romney not produced his version of the health care bill in MA, things would be a lot worse now. He even attempted to veto 8 complete sections of the final bill but the legislature overrode his vetoes.

Massachusetts had an 85% Democrat majority in the legislature. Romney could not have stopped a health care bill if he tried. What he DID do was attempt to influence the process to at least keep PRIVATE health insurance options for people instead of the state taking the system over as the legislature wanted to do.

He found the best compromise position he could find under he circumstances. He SAVED private medical insurance for the people of that state.

If you don’t understand that, then you are either just plain stupid or you are a Democrat troll in here stirring the pot.

Had he simply vetoed the whole thing, the legislature would have simply overrode the veto and that would be the end of it and his constituents, the people he PROMISED to look out for, would be worse off.

The “conservatives” seem to have this notion that a person’s political stance is more important than the welfare of their constituents. Why would I want to vote for someone like that who is going to put their own personal political stance ahead of my family?

You must mean the “conservatives” in the Soviet Union. Otherwise, you are full of it.

I watched the 1976, 1980 and the 1968 Republican Conventions, and the regular Republicans were behind Jerry Ford, Pappy Bush, and Richard Nixon. But all the conservatives were for Ronald Reagan.

Emperor Norton on April 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Indeed, our resident Orwellian re-writer of history confuses Reagan’s critique of a tiny minority of ultra-libertarians with Romney’s continual rejection of conservative doctrine in toto until he had a “jailhouse” conversion to giving it lip service in 2005-6, to the point where he has the moderate Republicans supporting Reagan in 1979 and the Goldwater Republicans rejecting him. Utter idiocy.

The ironic thing is that most who would critique people’s positions and bestow the RINO moniker themselves claim “I’m not a Republican, I’m a Conservative!”
So you have what amounts to RINOs calling people RINOs.
crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

True. And it’s absolutely bizarre how many people who vow to vote against the Republican nominee in order to elect re-Obama try to pass themselves off as “Republicans”, much less “Conservative”. They belong commenting at “Organize For America”, where people share their goal.

Norton, the “conservatives” didn’t like Reagan. Didn’t much like him even in his first term. It wasn’t until late into his first term (the final year, actually) that the “conservatives” started coming around on Reagan.

Newt bashed Regan every chance he got. So did many others. The talk at the time was “We don’t want some Hollywood movie star from California who ran the communist actors union as President”.

Were you politically aware in 1975 and 1976 or is that before you were born?

“Staunch Conservatives” never got along with Reagan until well into his presidency. NOW they wrap themselves in his mantle but at the time there wasn’t much love.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Excuse us…Reagan was the Conservative and the rest were establishment/blue blood country club types.